I haven’t made a precise, completely wrong prediction in a while, so I thought I’d go out on a limb here. Al Gore will be Obama’s VP candidate. He’s the only person that makes sense. Here are some reasons why.
Barack Obama (via azspot)
I think Obama’s pretty much right on this one. I would only add the wrinkle that if I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can point ot the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I think the language of religion has every place in the public sphere. However, this method may be a poor way to build a consensus.
We do not have a majority religious tradition in this country—at least not a majority voting block. Catholics and Evangelicals may both oppose abortion, but they do so for very different reasons. If they are going to organize they will need to reach out to others, which means leaving room for a lot more ecumenicalism than some are comfortable with.
It’s that part of election season again. McCain seems to be reconsidering immigration. Obama may be reconsidering NAFTA. The shift toward the extreme in the primaries is balanced by a shift toward the center. Much of it is a matter of emphasizing different proposals than were previously emphasized—but some of it may represent a legitimate change of position.
Some of this shouldn’t be worrisome. Afterall, the candidates are surrounding themselves with moderates. They are getting different information from different people. They are listening to the concerns of a broader swath of people, which will emphasize different problems.
Should this be worrisome? Perhaps a bit, if it casts doubt on the sincerity of previous positions. On the other hand, a few compromises in light of new developments or new information are probably a good idea.
The Clinton campaign is about $20 million in debt. She’s looking for help retiring some of that debt. This is going to be a bit of an awkward sell, seeing as about half of that debt is money she loaned her campaign. It’s a bit of an awkward argument to try to convince people to give money to those who are better off than they are.
It’s like the opposite of charity.
Can you explain the political situation in China in three sentences?
The increasingly capitalist “Communist” party retains all political power. Public dissent is illegal and is a good way to find yourself in jail. While international pressure and a nationalistic desire to look good for the Olympics suggests some thawing of this tight grip on expression, there is little indication that any hoped for relaxation will be either significant or lasting.
I seriously think even George Will is thinking about voting for Obama.
The general idea the article discusses is that you can change behaviors by changing defaults. If we want to have organ donors, we could pass a law that says everybody has to be an organ donor—but that’s a bit worrisome for a number of reasons. Currently we have an opt-in system, which means that people who don’t care enough or don’t bother to do anything one way or another won’t be organ donors. We could, alternatively, make it an opt-out system, so that those who don’t want to be organ donors can decline, but taking no action means you’re an organ donor. This should satisfy both the libertarians and the progressives.